My friend spat the words through gritted teeth with the kind of vehemence normally reserved for YouTube comment threads. I considered calling a halt to the game, packing it away, and finding something less infuriating to play instead. Then I looked around and saw the bright-eyed grins on the faces of everyone else around the table.

Robo Rally, it turns out, is a polarizing game because its main source of entertainment can be watching other players’ frustration. It’s also considered something of a classic. Designed by Richard Garfield of Magic: The Gathering fame and first published in 1994, Robo Rally has recently been re-released by Hasbro in an updated version. The game hands players control of industrial robots competing in a race around a factory packed with hazards. Wall-mounted lasers fry anything caught in their path, conveyor belts drag robots hopelessly off course, and yawning chasms swallow anyone who teeters too close to the edge.

My aggrieved friend had become intimate with all three of these dangers. His robot had been bashed, zapped, shunted, and otherwise abused from the very first turn, and he had finally reached his breaking point.

Game details

But Robo Rally isn’t just an arbitrary engine for dispensing pain. At its heart, the game is about careful planning and making the best use of available resources to steadily advance toward victory. Essentially, it’s about programming. You start the game armed with a personal deck of “order cards” which can command your robot to move forward or backwards or turn to the left or right. After drawing nine of these cards on each round and choosing five of them to play, you lay them down in order of execution. When everyone’s finished, you each take a turn resolving your actions one at a time and move your robot around the board in an effort to reach a series of checkpoints.

It sounds straightforward, but the game injects multiple elements of chaos to ensure that even the best-laid plans can go hideously wrong. In addition to the aforementioned obstacles, of course, it’s not uncommon to find yourself on the wrong end of several of them in the course of a single round. And your robot rivals can unceremoniously shove you around the board or zap you with lasers as they carve their own path toward the finish line.

Time is also an issue. The first player to finish programming his or her robot on each round gets to flip a 30-second sand timer. Any opponents who haven’t issued all of their commands by the time it runs out are forced to play cards at random from the top of their decks. The game makes them lose control of their droid and potentially creates a massive headache as they attempt to steer their way back into the race.

Robo Rally’s most anarchic feature, though, is its assortment of damage cards, which you acquire whenever you suffer dings and dents in the arena. These are added to your programming deck and have a variety of derailing effects, all of which make your robot more difficult to control. Picking up one or two is no big deal—they simply pollute your deck and give you fewer useful options to choose from during a round. But eventually you acquire enough that you have no choice but to play one or more as part of your sequence of commands, triggering their effects and forcing you to deal with the unpredictable consequences.

It’s not all bad news, though. For one thing, you can use the arena itself to your advantage; hopping on a conveyor belt can catapult you toward your next checkpoint. You can use your stash of energy cubes to purchase upgrade cards to get your robot new abilities (this will be familiar to anyone who’s played Garfield’s family-friendly monster battle game King of Tokyo). Recharging stations dotted around the board give you the chance to acquire extra energy, and different combinations of powers can prove useful as the game goes on.

Robo Rally is fun, challenging, and, yes, frustrating. That means your enjoyment of the game will probably depend on your ability to shrug off setbacks. And it’s easy to see why certain types of players take a strong and immediate dislike to it.

But, while some potential problems depend largely on players’ personalities, others are harder to ignore.

For one thing, Robo Rally’s physical design is problematic. It comes with six painted plastic miniature robots, and, while they aren’t spectacular, they’re cute and full of personality. The modular board segments, though, are another matter. The dull, repetitive expanse of metallic grey floor tiles is about as visually appealing as a game of Minesweeper. Then there are the player boards and punch-out tokens, which are printed on the flimsiest card stock I’ve ever seen in a game.

While Robo Rally was perhaps the earliest game to popularize the idea of “programming” actions, it has been outdone by subsequent releases which took the concept and developed it. Just as the card game Dominion introduced the concept of deck building and gave rise to a host of other games that put their own spins on the formula, Robo Rally has been overtaken, most notably by 2016’s Mechs vs. Minions. This League of Legends-themed game takes the idea of a programmed sequence of orders and adapts it for cooperative play, while adding an engaging storyline, greater variety in its scenarios, and an astounding level of presentation. (Ars’ own Sam Machovech recently reviewed Mechs vs. Minions and found it wanting; I enjoyed it much more.)

Comparing Robo Rally to Mechs vs. Minions might seem unfair. In the 20 years since Robo Rally was first released, board gaming has gone through extraordinary creative growth. The new version of Robo Rally does have some significant changes, most notably the removal of player elimination. But while there’s fun to be had in the game’s blend of considered planning and frantic, laser-induced panic, it often feels clunky by 21st-century standards. Robo Rally definitely shows its age, and, at this point, its strongest appeal is probably nostalgia.

Share this story

37 Reader Comments

I've probably been playing Roborally for about 20 years - we played an original version with a family friend, then basically made our own by printing our own boards off the nascent internet. A couple years ago I finally got a real copy.

The main issue I have with it is that it is very vulnerable to the early frontrunner running away with the whole thing. Once you get clear of the pack, you don't have to worry nearly as much about getting bumped/pushed/shot by the other robots, so you can plan with much more certainty and lower risk. The bots back in the scrum constantly have to pull punches to avoid other robots or are accumulating 1-2 damage points/turn from bot-mounted laser hits.

A good step up is to get some boards off the internet to replace the stock ones: a board where every single tile is something really substantial that requires thought tends to reward hard thinking over an early lucky getaway. One of our custom ones from back in the day had every single tile being a pit, teleporter, pusher, gear, or conveyor, so it was more of a puzzle every turn.

I played a lot of Roborally about 10 years ago (the original version), and my group of friends used some variations to change things up a bit.

To avoid the early frontrunner problem mentioned by Bongle we had a force field on every checkpoint except the first one. The force field has to be shot 3 times before anyone can reach the waypoint (trying to enter a waypoint with a force field results in damage). The force field on a waypoint can only be shot if the previous waypoint has been reached by a robot.

We also played a variant where each player is dealt 6 cards before the first turn (and after dying), and then 5 cards on the other turns. The card that is not used is saved for the next turn. Any damage will immediately start to lock registers.

I made a board editor and custom boards and also custom cards with some extra moves (double backwards, left/right sidestep and idle). We also usually played without the upgrade cards and player elimination.

The 30 second countdown mechanic sounds like something you would only resort to in the context of an insufferable jerk willing to try metagame attrition at the slightest provocation.

Is it better than it sounds; or does it mostly ensure that the player with the most straightforward options gets to 'program' optimally; and the ones with hairier material to work with are given an additional shove toward being the wacky mayhem for that round, rather than having time to come up with anything elegant, if there is anything elegant to be done?

I still have my original First and Second Editions, with all the expansions. The addition of damage cards has potential to be an improvement on the original process of just tracking damage points and eventually locking card registers. But the simplification of movement, by removing the processing order numbers from the cards and having players take turns executing all of their programming at once seems to take away one the more entertaining, and strategic, aspects of the game. The cheapness of the components is a downer though. $25 is a very cheap price for this sort of package, but I'd be happy to pay an extra $5 for a bit better cardstock.

It is just different enough from the original, and cheap, that I find it tempting. Perhaps as an inexpensive item to put on my Christmas list?

With some Ars' reviews, I wish numbers were provided so I could understand how many tens of people ever even heard of this product....

I don't know, I'm not a big board game player at all, but the name Robo Rally still sounds familiar to me. (Might be because I'm German, though. I think these games are more heavily marketed over here than in the States.)

I tried this game and the concept is cool but i think the game is to slow.

This game would probably shine on console or pc. With the main board on the TV and all player choosing there move on a cell phone or tablet. This way once everybody as made there choice the game could automate the whole process.

I'm disappointed that the review doesn't differentiate between the original game and this seemingly bastardized version put out by Hasbro. I haven't seen Hasbro-version myself, but based on the review and the other commenters, they made major changes to the rules. No more priority numbers on cards? No more taking your turns in order by phase? "Damage cards" in your deck, versus being dealt fewer cards and eventually having locked registers? It sounds like this is "Robo Rally Lite". Which is fine, but the review doesn't say "Robo Rally Lite is no fun/unbalanced/etc". It says "Robo Rally, a 20 year old game, is no fun/unbalanced/etc". If I were reading this without knowing anything of the game, I'd think that the original has all of these problems, but most of the problems cited are with the new mechanics and would not exist if you were to play the original 20-year-old game.

TL;DR: The problem with the game isn't that it hasn't aged well. The problem is that this brand-new version contains rules changes that (seemingly) unbalance the game or render it un-fun. Doesn't follow that you'd automatically like the "original" if you don't like the "new", but this review (imo unfairly) attributes the problems of the new to the original.

Lyaka: What is more odd is that I've bought my copy fairly recently, and while it was updated from the original, with better maps and minatures, it still had priority numbers and all the stuff that made Roborally fun.

Lyaka: What is more odd is that I've bought my copy fairly recently, and while it was updated from the original, with better maps and minatures, it still had priority numbers and all the stuff that made Roborally fun.

Yeah, a friend has the Avalon Hill version and it's virtually identical... but now when I go to the AH website they're showing the 'new' version. Today I learned that Avalon Hill is a Hasbro imprint So does this mean that one can't currently purchase a version that's set up to use the original rules? That would be a bummer... and confusing when you sit down to play with a new group of people, if they've only encountered the 'new' set of rules. Boo, Hasbro!

I'm disappointed that the review doesn't differentiate between the original game and this seemingly bastardized version put out by Hasbro. (...)

TL;DR: The problem with the game isn't that it hasn't aged well. The problem is that this brand-new version contains rules changes that (seemingly) unbalance the game or render it un-fun. Doesn't follow that you'd automatically like the "original" if you don't like the "new", but this review (imo unfairly) attributes the problems of the new to the original.

Hear, hear! Robo Rally (the original) is one of the most fun board games I've played in many years. The timer should however, only be used as a guideline in my humble opnion - never to force people too much. Hasbro is not the only one to sell a stripped down version. 999 games did the same some 10 years ago. I also did not like that stripped down version.For optimum fun: simply make sure that route is such that frontrunners inevitably run into the pack on their way to the next marker.

For those wondering about the new edition, Richard Garfield had a nice post on BoardGameGeek about the changes: apparently he was involved in making the changes (he wanted to take what he'd learned about game design in the past 25 years), but wasn't kept in the loop on the whole process:

As a huge fan of the original Roborally, I'm also aware of its flaws, and that it's not the best game for everyone (people with trouble visualizing spatial relationships have a huge problem with it). The elements of "randomness" are what make it fun to me, otherwise it'd just come down to who can map out the perfect turn with their cards. Once a game is well underway, I always say "This plan is flawless, nothing can go wrong" after my program is complete. Because we all know that saying it makes it true...

The suggestion above about making the board route cross back over itself is a great way to reduce the "leader runaway" problem by giving everyone else a chance to get in their way.

I'm disappointed that the review doesn't differentiate between the original game and this seemingly bastardized version put out by Hasbro. I haven't seen Hasbro-version myself, but based on the review and the other commenters, they made major changes to the rules. No more priority numbers on cards? No more taking your turns in order by phase? "Damage cards" in your deck, versus being dealt fewer cards and eventually having locked registers? It sounds like this is "Robo Rally Lite".

What I dislike about the "Ars Cardboard" articles is that they are not very well-researched reviews, entirely unlike their video game reviews, nor are they as well-explained. Richard Garfield made many of these changes and makes comments as to why he did so in this post to Board Game Geek: https://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/16 ... sign-notes

It's an enlightening insight into one of the industry's most prolific game designers.

*proceeds to review the relatively new, significantly changed edition of the game"

Seriously, damage cards aren't "archaic", they're actually a new addition to the game. I would have preferred this article to focus on the differences between the original and new editions of the game, but I'm not sure that the author has even played the original version.

For those wondering about the new edition, Richard Garfield had a nice post on BoardGameGeek about the changes: apparently he was involved in making the changes (he wanted to take what he'd learned about game design in the past 25 years), but wasn't kept in the loop on the whole process:

Thank you!! This was great to read, and definitely helps put the differences in perspective. I'll be up for trying this "rebooted" version of the game. My issue isn't so much with there being a new version, as it is with the somewhat deceptive marketing and the way Ars presented this review as if it were a review of the original while largely complaining about brand new rules.

Best quote from Garfield: "Of COURSE this game should have a separate page. It is a different game. It is so different that I intending to publish it with a different IP when I wasn't getting any response from Hasbro." ...that says it all.

Why would you write an article about a boardgame being shitty? Ars Technica is not a product review site.

Because they were interested, and some of their audience is interested. That's all the reason they need.

I was unhappy with the announcement of more changes to Robo Rally's rules, but after reading Garfield's explanation (linked earlier in the thread), I'm optimistic. Bad materials can be dealt with, particularly for the boards. They cheaped out on the production quality in order to cut the price by half - that's not something to sneer at, and may be worth it in the long run.

I had to create an account just to say that my friends and I love this game, even with all its flaws! I'm not sure what version we're playing, but a lot of the rules have changed, as others have pointed out, so I'm not sure if that makes the game more or less enjoyable.

Anyway, my friends and I have built an open-source implementation of this game using real robots that we debuted at the Origins Game Fair last year (and we hope to be back again this year!), and it seems like something the Ars community might be interested in.

Anyway, my friends and I have built an open-source implementation of this game using real robots that we debuted at the Origins Game Fair last year (and we hope to be back again this year!), and it seems like something the Ars community might be interested in.

As many people have already said, these rules are not the only rules. The orgininal version is great to have fun with a group of friends who don't take it too seriously- if you can't laugh at yourself and your friends, it won't be fun. Things will go wrong, and the card lock in mechanic as you take damage was great.

Oh year, the timer sucks- not everyone can program and rotate boards in their heads as quickly and it is not really needed as long as no-one really takes the piss. A bit of gentle ribbing and threats of using the timer fixed any slow play problems we had.

I didn't play this when it was new, but my group tried it about 4 years ago. We universally hated it. Being a programmer myself, I thought I might like it, but it was very dull in all of our opinion. It's really not fair, of course--after the years of Euro-games, anything that old will have a hard time measuring up.

I'm sure the strategy goes deeper than we realized, but overall, there was nothing really rewarding about playing it.

As others here I was also very confused reading this review because most of the rules mentioned are not actually in RoboRally - the original.

Contrary to others though I don't think it invalidates the review. I love RoboRally, but it really is not for everyone. You need some pretty specific skills to play this (the original even more than this reboot, I think). Spatial awareness, very fast decisionmaking, ability to both plan, execute and handle surprises - and most importantly of all - be a *very* good loser, because most of the time things will go wrong and your robot will get horribly mangled. You will know halfway through the game that you have *no* chance of winning, and yet you should keep playing.

On top of that the (original) rules are somewhat over complicated. Until you've played the game many, many times you really have to stop and think about everything from dealing cards, to execution order, making the game very slow in between the frantic planning phase. Particularly if you have any newbies (as well as frustrating them immensely).

In short - it's definitely not for everyone. But it is a classic for a reason - the original that is (since I haven't tried this version).

I love RoboRally. I do think the previous editions don't give enough guidance for how to lay out the course, which makes a huge difference for how fun it is to not be in the lead. Not clear whether this new edition addresses that. Some other commenters have suggested nice optional rules for this. I especially like the idea of having to shoot through a barrier when you are first to a flag.

The change to accumulating energy to earn options sounds like it could be a fun change. In the core it's a little too hard to get options in my opinion. Maybe this flows a little better? Unclear from the review.

The 30 second timer sounds like an awful change. There's no need to be a jerk to the people who are having the hardest time at what can be a challenging game. Throw that timer away, you'll be happier without it.

The graphic design and material quality doesn't look as good as the previous editions. That seems sad. The cards for each player for laying out their cards and giving them the quick reference info seems like a nice idea (that wasn't in the previous editions at all) that could have been implemented in a much more useful way, so that's a little disappointing too.

The 30 second timer sounds like an awful change. There's no need to be a jerk to the people who are having the hardest time at what can be a challenging game. Throw that timer away, you'll be happier without it.

I've only played the new version but that is not my experience at all. The timer is one of the few equalizing mechanics in the game: when you get a hand full of spam you can throw them down and force others to hurry and be more likely to make mistakes. It is only when you get very good cards that give you many good options that you need extra time to think.

Also, I can't see myself wanting to slow the game down. Short courses are boring because many aspects of the game do not come into play at all, so I want to play long ones. However, I don't want to spend a lot of time on the course if someone is already in convincing lead.

Oh, regarding quality, I didn't mind the cardstock or graphics but the writing left a lot to be desired. There were some clear misprints and typos. Some cards' text did not match the rules. Virus damage made no sense as written.

I'm disappointed that the review doesn't differentiate between the original game and this seemingly bastardized version put out by Hasbro. I haven't seen Hasbro-version myself, but based on the review and the other commenters, they made major changes to the rules. No more priority numbers on cards? No more taking your turns in order by phase? "Damage cards" in your deck, versus being dealt fewer cards and eventually having locked registers? It sounds like this is "Robo Rally Lite". Which is fine, but the review doesn't say "Robo Rally Lite is no fun/unbalanced/etc". It says "Robo Rally, a 20 year old game, is no fun/unbalanced/etc". If I were reading this without knowing anything of the game, I'd think that the original has all of these problems, but most of the problems cited are with the new mechanics and would not exist if you were to play the original 20-year-old game.

TL;DR: The problem with the game isn't that it hasn't aged well. The problem is that this brand-new version contains rules changes that (seemingly) unbalance the game or render it un-fun. Doesn't follow that you'd automatically like the "original" if you don't like the "new", but this review (imo unfairly) attributes the problems of the new to the original.

I came here to emphasize this. The original game, with card priorities and no energy or special damage cards, is a pure classic. Amazing game. One I still bring out to play. The bastardized remake reviewed here is not worthy of a review. To add to the quoted comments, apparently the new version is capped at 6 players. Nothing better than getting an 8 person game of the original. Not sure why they had to reduce the number of players. There are not a lot of 7-8 player games out there that are as fun as the original Robo Rally.

The main issue I have with it is that it is very vulnerable to the early frontrunner running away with the whole thing. Once you get clear of the pack, you don't have to worry nearly as much about getting bumped/pushed/shot by the other robots, so you can plan with much more certainty and lower risk. The bots back in the scrum constantly have to pull punches to avoid other robots or are accumulating 1-2 damage points/turn from bot-mounted laser hits.

Is it just me, or are you suggesting winning is the point? If I recall correctly, the entire fun of the game is falling into pits, getting trapped on conveyor belts, and getting shot repeatedly by everyone for no good reason. If you ever pull ahead of the pack in this manner, the solution is to turn around. Otherwise you'll miss all the fun and end up winning. Have I ever made it to the last flag in Robo Rally? I have no idea. It's like the Paranoia RPG--where the best game I ever played was the one where I died so frequently and so spectacularly, that I went through every single clone before I reached the mission briefing that started the adventure.

*proceeds to review the relatively new, significantly changed edition of the game"

Seriously, damage cards aren't "archaic", they're actually a new addition to the game. I would have preferred this article to focus on the differences between the original and new editions of the game, but I'm not sure that the author has even played the original version.

The article didn't call the damage cards "archaic." It called them "anarchic."

I originally hated Robo Rally. Then I tried playing it with a different group, and my verdict was mixed. Still didn't love it, but it wasn't as bad as I remembered.

The timer makes it so that people who are good at that kind of thinking have an advantage, IMO. I _am_ good at it, but I still somewhat dislike the timer because it forces me to hurry. On the other hand, Robo Rally is dull as ditchwater when it drags… and if someone sits there thinking about their move for minutes at a time, it'll drag. Especially with lots of players.

I love the idea of the actual robotic version — a computer resolving the moves would fix one area where the game drags (slow resolution of moves). Shame it requires so much physical space!

Robo Rally the Redux is not very much like the original. Saying that Robo Rally has aged poorly and them complaining about the crappy maps (added later), the crappy timer (added later), and the randomness of the movement (added later by removing the priority numbers) isn't much of a review of Robo Rally.

Really, I'm not sure how the game could be played without the priority numbers on the movement cards. That's a major part of the strategy and how you plan a move. This game has had many interesting bits stripped out till it is now so simplified as to be mentally handicapped

The 30 second countdown mechanic sounds like something you would only resort to in the context of an insufferable jerk willing to try metagame attrition at the slightest provocation.

Is it better than it sounds; or does it mostly ensure that the player with the most straightforward options gets to 'program' optimally; and the ones with hairier material to work with are given an additional shove toward being the wacky mayhem for that round, rather than having time to come up with anything elegant, if there is anything elegant to be done?

One of the most popular games in my boardgaming circles, for nearly 20 years running. I believe in the original edition, the timer rule was specifically couched as optional--there only if you were having a problem due to people taking forever. I know we've never used it precisely for the reasons you identify (but I can't say for certain whether not-using it was us implementing a house rule, or that's the default state, or it's a change in the latest edition). And it's a longer game unless you really work to set it up for a quick session, so if it takes someone a long time to program, that just means you can get snacks or run to the bathroom.

Robo Rally the Redux is not very much like the original. Saying that Robo Rally has aged poorly and them complaining about the crappy maps (added later), the crappy timer (added later), and the randomness of the movement (added later by removing the priority numbers) isn't much of a review of Robo Rally.

Really, I'm not sure how the game could be played without the priority numbers on the movement cards. That's a major part of the strategy and how you plan a move. This game has had many interesting bits stripped out till it is now so simplified as to be mentally handicapped

Maybe we will review Monopoly and say that "The Landlord Game" sucks.

I was wondering how much of this was changes in the new edition, because the description of several elements doesn't match the game I've been playing for 2 decades. I didn't even notice the lack of priority numbers--that would be a significant loss.

We often have toyed with house-ruling "infinite lives", because sitting out is no fun, but over the years someone has been eliminated and still wanted to keep playing so few times, that it continued to be a theoretical house rule. IME, usually by the time someone manages to die 3 times, it's about 90% of the way through the game, and they're clearly not going to win, so they're perfectly happy to just be done. And I do mean "happy": the most memorable instance was when someone through a combo of bad programming and bad luck threw herself into the same pit 3 turns in a row. She was laughing as hard as anybody, and continued to enjoy playing the game at subsequent gatherings.

I love Robo Rally ... well the original version anyway. We had nights we would play this as a break from the P&P RPG du jour (or our other break game- Paranoia) and it was always a great night. We had multiple sets of tiles, and expansions as well as some downloaded tiles and would set up a marathon course.